Justin v. Real Options for City Kids

Background

Malik M. Justin filed three related cases while representing himself. The first case named Real Options for City Kids and others as defendants. The second case also named Real Options for City Kids and others. The third named San Francisco State University and others. The court issued one order in all three cases because the factual statements in the two later-filed complaints referred back to the first-filed case.

Justin applied to proceed in forma pauperis, meaning without prepaying filing fees or providing security. He cited “USC 1030,” “USC 2511,” and “USC 1343,” but did not identify the relevant title of the United States Code or explain the legal rights he sought to enforce. The court inferred that he may have been attempting to assert claims involving computer fraud, interception or disclosure of electronic communications, and wire fraud.

Screening analysis

The court explained that it must screen a complaint filed by a person proceeding in forma pauperis and dismiss it if it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks money from an immune defendant. The court applies the same basic pleading standard used for a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim: the complaint must provide enough factual matter to make a claim plausible and must give defendants fair notice of the claims.

The court found that Justin’s allegations were not specific enough. His complaint stated that he experienced a “major company hack” and Social Security number fraud that came from San Francisco State University or the Real Options for City Kids program, but it did not explain what allegedly happened, what defendants did, when the conduct occurred, or what damages Justin suffered. The court therefore found that the complaint failed to provide sufficient factual matter to state a claim.

Ruling

Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin granted Justin’s applications to proceed in forma pauperis in all three cases. The court dismissed Justin’s complaint with leave to amend because its factual allegations were insufficient. The court ordered that any amended complaint be filed in Case No. 3:24-cv-3309 on or before July 12, 2024. The court also encouraged Justin to consider whether the three lawsuits were based on the same facts and sought relief for the same violations, and explained that he could file notices of dismissal in cases he chose to abandon.